Processing math: 95%

Towards the establishment of the light JP (C )=1–(+) hybrid nonet

  • The observation of the light hybrid candidate η1(1855) by the BESIII Collaboration offers great opportunities for advancing our knowledge on exotic hadrons in terms of flavor sector. We demonstrate that this observation provides a crucial clue for establishing the JP(C)=1(+) hybrid nonet. Based on the flux tube model picture, the production and decay mechanisms for the JP(C)=1(+) hybrid nonet in the J/ψ radiative decays into two pseudoscalar mesons are investigated. In the I=0 sector, we deduce that the SU(3) flavor octet and singlet mixing is non-negligible and apparently deviates from the flavor ideal mixing. Because only signals for one isoscalar η1(1855) are observed in the ηη channel, we investigate two schemes of the nonet structure in which η1(1855) can either be the higher or lower mass state that strongly couples to ηη. Possible channels for detecting the multiplets are suggested. In particular, a combined analysis of the hybrid production in J/ψVH, where V and H denote the light vector mesons and 1(+) hybrid states, respectively, may provide further evidence for this nonet structure and ultimately establish these mysterious exotic species in the experiment.
  • In the conventional quark model mesons are made of quark-anti-quark (qˉq) and baryons are made of three quarks (qqq). Such a simple picture has achieved significant successes in the description of hadron spectra based on the constituent quark degrees of freedom. Meanwhile, as the fundamental theory for strong interactions, QCD predicts the existence of hadrons with more sophisticated structures, namely, exotic hadrons. These states, of which the structures are beyond the conventional quark model, have been a crucial probe for the non-perturbative phenomena of QCD. Among all the exotic candidates, hadrons with such quantum numbers that cannot be accommodated by the conventional quark model, would serve as a "smoking gun" for the existence of exotic hadrons. In particular, "hybrid", which contains the explicit excitations of the constituent-like gluonic degrees of freedom, can access the exotic quantum numbers of JPC=1+ as the lowest eigenstates. Its study has always garnered considerable attention from both experiments and theory.

    In Refs. [1, 2], the BESIII Collaboration reports the first observation of the 1+ isoscalar hybrid candidate η1(1855) in the partial wave analysis of J/ψγη1(1855)γηη. Its mass and width are (1855±9+61) MeV and (188±18+38) MeV, respectively. This progress may provide a great opportunity for a better understanding of these mysterious species of the QCD-predicted exotic states.

    Historically, evidences for the 1+ hybrid were found by various experiments [38]; in addition, two light hybrid candidates, π1(1400) and π1(1600), were reported. However, owing to the limited statistics, their existences were far from broadly accepted. A comprehensive review of the early experimental results can be found in Refs. [9, 10]. Strong indication of the 1+ hybrid π1(1600) is obtained from the COMPASS Collaboration based on their partial wave analysis (PWA) results for πppπ+ππ [1114]. In a recent detailed analysis [15] by COMPASS, it shows that the π1(1600) signal cannot be accounted for by the Deck effect [16]. A reanalysis of the COMPASS data with the coupled-channel approach also supports that the π1(1600) signal should be originated from a pole structure in the scattering amplitude [17]. These results have provided strong evidences for π1(1600) as a well-established 1+ hybrid candidate. In contrast, the signals for π1(1400) are ultimately vague. According to the analysis of Ref. [17], there is no need for the π1(1400) to be present in the ρπ channel.

    Phenomenological studies on the 1+ hybrid state can be found in the literature. By treating the gluonic excitation as an explicit constituent degree of freedom, phenomenological models were constructed to understand the exotic hadron spectrum or describe the mechanisms for their productions and decays [18, 19]. Among all these efforts, the flux tube model has achieved significant success in accommodating the broadly adopted quark pair creation (QPC) model for the strong decays of conventional hadrons and gluonic excitations of QCD exotics [2023]. Calculations in the framework of QCD sum rules also provide interesting results on the properties of the light hybrid π1 state [24, 25]. In Ref. [26], the decay properties are studied for π1 and its non-strange isoscalar partner. In Ref. [27], it is investigated that an isoscalar with IG(JPC)=0+(1+) may be formed as a bound state of ηˉKK. However, the mass is much lower than η1(1855).

    There is no doubt that lattice QCD (LQCD) simulations should play a crucial role in guiding the search for the hybrid states. In Ref. [28], the first systematic LQCD study on the excited isoscalar meson spectra was presented. It is interesting to observe the emergence of the mixing patterns between the SU(3) flavor singlet and octet such as the η and η mixing. In the 1+ hybrid sector, some hints for the mixing between the non-strange and strange configurations are found. Meanwhile, its prediction of the isoscalar 1+ hybrid spectrum indicates relatively higher masses than the light axial vector mesons. It implies an unusual behavior of the excitations of the gluonic degrees of freedom in comparison with the orbital excitations within conventional qˉq systems.

    In light of the discovery of η1(1855) by BESIII [1, 2] and the LQCD simulations [28, 29], we propose a nonet scheme for the 1(+) hybrid states. In this scheme, π1(1600) is the I=1 state with the lowest mass, and η1(1855) is identified as one of the I=0 multiplets. The strange I=1/2 partner is assigned to K(1680), which is the only strange vector meson found in the vicinity of the 1.61.9 GeV mass region. Although the strange hybrid does not have a fixed charge conjugate parity, it cannot be easily distinguished from the conventional qˉq vector meson; hence, there is no strong reason to suggest that such an exotic object should not exist. Considering the flavor-blind property of QCD, the strange hybrid of qˉs˜g should at least share similar dynamics as the I=1 partner π1(1600). In Ref. [28], the mass splitting between the flavor singlet and octet is determined to be significant. This is attributed to the important effects from the quark annihilations in the I=0 sector.

    As follows, we first analyse the mixing between η1(1855) and its isoscalar partner, and the mass relationships among the 1(+) hybrid nonet. Two schemes, in which η1(1855) is assigned to be either the higher or lower mass state in the I=0 sector, are explored based on the flux tube model picture. Phenomenological consequences will be discussed in their productions and decays in several typical processes. A brief summary will be given in the end.

    On the SU(3) flavor basis, the light hybrid mesons are described by a pair of qˉq associated by gluonic quasiparticle excitations. Taking the flux tube model picture, the qˉq inside hybrid mesons are separated static color sources and are connected by the gluonic flux tube, to form an overall color singlet. The transverse oscillations of the flux tube that manifest the explicit effective gluonic degrees of freedom, will lead to the energy spectrum of the hybrid mesons. As studied in the literature, the lowest energy flux tube motion has JPCg=1+. Namely, the lightest hybrid multiplet can be formed by the relative S-wave coupling between a gluonic lump of JPCg=1+ and an S-wave qˉq pair. With the total gluon spin JPCg=1+, the lowest hybrid multiplets can be obtained: (0, 1, 2)+, 1 [29, 30]. Alternatively, in the constituent gluon picture, the lowest energy flux tube excitation can be described by the motion of quasigluon in a P wave, with respect to the S-wave qˉq.

    The gluonic excitations additive to the S-wave constituent qˉq configuration suggest that for each S-wave qˉq pair, there should exist an SU(3) flavor nonet as the eigenstates of the corresponding Hamiltonian. For the same coupling mode involving the gluonic lump, these states can be related to each other by the Gell-Mann-Okubo mass relationship similar to that for the ground states in the qˉq scenario. This conjecture may have a caveat when the strange multiplets are included. Because the charged and strange states do not have the fixed C parity, this may raise the question whether a nonet scheme is feasible. Note that signals for charged π1(1600) have been seen in the decay channels of ρ0π [11] and ηπ [12, 13]. Similar dynamics should appear in the strange sector and a nonet structure among the 1(+) multiplets should provide optimal guidance for a better understanding of the underlying dynamics.

    Taking the 1+ hybrid as an example, it should contain flavor multiplets as follows:

    π+1, π1, π01:uˉd˜g, dˉu˜g, 12(uˉudˉd)˜g ,

    (1)

    η(8)1:16(uˉu+dˉd2sˉs)˜g ,

    (2)

    η(1)1:13(uˉu+dˉd+sˉs)˜g ,

    (3)

    K+, K0, K, ˉK0:uˉs˜g, dˉs˜g, sˉu˜g, sˉd˜g ,

    (4)

    where ˜g represents the gluonic lump with JPCg=1+. For the flavor octet η(8)1 and singlet η(1)1 with isospin I=0, they may mix with each other to form the corresponding physical states similar to the familiar ηη mixing.

    Considering the mixing between the hybrid flavor singlet and octet, the physical states can be expressed as

    (η1Lη1H)=(cosθsinθsinθcosθ)(η(8)1η(1)1)=(cosαsinαsinαcosα)(nˉn˜gsˉs˜g),

    (5)

    where θ is the mixing angle between the flavor octet and singlet, and α is the mixing angle defined on the flavor basis nˉn˜g (with nˉn(uˉu+dˉd)/2) and sˉs˜g.

    The Gell-Mann-Okubo relationship can provide a constraint on the mixing angle θ via the following equation:

    tanθ=4mKmπ13mη1L22(mπ1mK) ,

    (6)

    where η1L is the lower mass state in Eq. (5) and the sign of θ can be determined here. We note that the same relationship is also satisfied for the quadratic masses. The Gell-Mann-Okubo relationship also leads to the following mass relation,

    (mη1H+mη1L)(4mKmπ1)3mη1Hmη1L=8m2K8mKmπ1+3m2π1 ,

    (7)

    which is symmetric for η1L and η1H, although it is the lower mass state η1L defined in Eq. (5) to appear in Eq. (6). With the masses of π1(1600) and η1(1855) as the input for Eqs. (6) and (7), we are still unable to determine these three quantities, i.e. θ, mη1H/mη1L and mK. In addition, it is unclear whether η1(1855) is the lower or higher mass state in Eq. (5). However, we will later demonstrate that the ηη channel is informative to impose a constraint on the determination of the 1(+) nonet.

    The flavor-blindness of the strong interactions also allows us to relate the SU(3) decay channels together [3134]. Considering the two-body decay of η1L and η1H into the pseudoscalar meson pair PP, two independent transition mechanisms can be identified, as illustrated in Fig. 1 (a) and (b). The transition of Fig. 1 (a) represents the flux tube string breaking with the quark pair creation. It is similar to the decay of a conventional qˉq state into two mesons using the quark pair creation (QPC) mechanism. In the flux tube scenario, it corresponds to the flux excitation mode along the displacement between the quark and anti-quark, for which the potential is denoted as ˆVL. The transition of Fig. 1 (b) corresponds to the flux excitation mode transversal to the displacement between the quark and anti-quark. The quark pair created from this mode will recoil the initial color-octet qˉq via the transverse flux motion. For a conventional qˉq decay via the 3P0 QPC mechanism, the kinematic regime as Fig. 1 (b) will be relatively suppressed with respect to Fig. 1 (a). In such a case, in order to balance the color, an additional relatively-hard gluon will be exchanged between the recoiled qˉq and the created qˉq. In contrast, such a transition in the hybrid decay can naturally occur via the transverse mode of the flux tube oscillations [35]. Namely, the created qˉq can easily obtain the color balanced by soft gluon exchanges, which can be absorbed into the effective potential without suppression. Such a transition through the transverse mode of the flux tube motions can be parametrized by the effective potential ˆVT.

    Figure 1

    Figure 1.  (color online) Illustration of the 1(+) isoscalar hybrid decays into two mesons.

    The transition amplitude for a 1+ hybrid of qˉq˜g decaying into two pseudoscalar mesons can then be expressed as

    Ma=(q1ˉq4)M1(q3ˉq2)M2|ˆVL|q1ˉq2˜gg1|k| ,

    (8)

    and

    Mb=(q1ˉq2)M1(q3ˉq4)M2|ˆVT|q1ˉq2˜gg2|k| ,

    (9)

    for these two decay modes, respectively. In the above two equations, k denotes the three-vector momentum of the final-state meson in the c.m. frame of the hybrid, while the quarks (anti-quarks) represent the non-strange quarks (anti-quarks). Note that the QPC only contributes to a flavor singlet ˜g(uˉu+dˉd+sˉs)/3. We mention that when the sˉs pair is created, an SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking parameter will be included. Furthermore, in the above two amplitudes, the interchanges of the final-state hadron indices are implied.

    This parametrization leads to a connection among the couplings of an initial hybrid state to different SU(3) channels, and they are collected in Table 1. Interesting features with the hybrid nonet decays can be learned as follows:

    Table 1

    Table 1.  Coupling constants for the 1(+) hybrid nonet decays into pseudoscalar meson pairs. The couplings for the negative charge states are implied. The SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking parameter R is also included.
    Processes Couplings
    π01ηπ0 12(g1+g2)cosαPRg2sinαP
    π01ηπ0 12(g1+g2)sinαP+Rg2cosαP
    π+1ηπ+ 2(g1+g2)cosαPRg2sinαP
    π+1ηπ+ 2(g1+g2)sinαP+Rg2cosαP
    η1Lηη 12(g1+g2)sin2αP(cosα+Rsinα)+g2cos2αP(Rcosαsinα)
    η1Hηη 12(g1+g2)sin2αP(sinαRcosα)+g2cos2αP(Rsinα+cosα)
    K+K+π0 12g1
    K+K0π+ g1
    K+K+η g1(12cosαPRsinαP)+g2(2cosαPRsinαP)
    K+K+η g1(12sinαP+RcosαP)+g2(2sinαP+RcosαP)
    DownLoad: CSV
    Show Table

    ● It is rather clear that if the final states do not contain isoscalar mesons, the transitions will occur via the string breaking potential ˆVL along the displacement between the quark and anti-quark. Namely, the transitions are similar to the conventional 3P0 process. For K decays into Kπ, it will be difficult to distinguish them from the conventional qˉq vector mesons.

    ● Regarding the π1 and K decays into η or η plus a I0 state, such as π01ηπ0 and ηπ0, the couplings involve interferences between the processes illustrated in Fig. 1 (a) and (b). Because the mixing angle between η and η is αP42, the couplings for the channels between η and η would be significantly different.

    η1L and η1H-decays into ππ and KˉK are forbidden by the Bose symmetry and G-parity conservation. They can only access ηη via the octet and singlet mixing. The coupling strengths exhibit non-trivial dependence on the mixing angle α. It can be observed that the decay pattern for these channels in a combined analysis should be sensitive to the value of α.

    A typical process for the production of a JPC=1+ hybrid in the J/ψ-radiative decays is illustrated by Fig. 2. This figure demonstrates that the annihilations of the charm and anti-charm quark can create a pair of light S-wave qˉq associated by a constituent gluon in a relative P-wave to the qˉq. At the hadronic level, the Lagrangian for a general vector-vector-vector field interaction at the leading-order can be described by

    Figure 2

    Figure 2.  (color online) Illustration of the 1+ isoscalar hybrid production in J/ψγη1.

    LVVV=igVVV(V1,νμVν2V3,μ+V1,μVν2μV3,ν+V2,μVν3μV1,ν) ,

    (10)

    where V1, V2, and V3 denote the vector fields. For the radiative decay of J/ψγη1, because the photon is transversely polarized, the above Lagrangian will reduce to the following form:

    LJ/ψγη1=igJ/ψη1γFμνVμJ/ψVνη1 ,

    (11)

    where FμνμAννAμ, while the vector fields VJ/ψ, A, and Vη1 represent the initial J/ψ, final-state photon, and hybrid η1 fields, respectively; gJ/ψη1γ is the coupling constant. Note that the leading transition of J/ψγη1 is via a P wave. In the center of mass (c.m.) frame of J/ψ, the squared transition amplitudes for the two I=0 states can be expressed as:

    |iM(J/ψγη1L)|2g2J/ψη1Lγ|qL|2(1+m2J/ψ/m2η1L) ,

    (12)

    |iM(J/ψγη1H)|2g2J/ψη1Hγ|qH|2(1+m2J/ψ/m2η1H) ,

    (13)

    where qL and qH are the three-vector momenta of η1L and η1H in the J/ψ rest frame, respectively. The subscripts, "L" and "H" represent the low and high mass states, respectively. The two coupling constants, gJ/ψη1Lγ and gJ/ψη1Hγ, which account for the production mechanism for these two isoscalars, can be parametrized out:

    gJ/ψη1Lγ=g0(2cosαRsinα) ,

    (14)

    gJ/ψη1Hγ=g0(2sinα+Rcosα) ,

    (15)

    where Rfπ/fK0.93 indicates the SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking effects in the production of the sˉs pair in comparison with the non-strange qˉq pairs, and g0 describes the coupling strength for the production of a light hybrid configuration qˉq˜g of JPC=1+ in the J/ψ radiative decays. It can be expressed as

    g0(qˉq˜g)1+|ˆHem|J/ψ ,

    (16)

    where ˆHem contains the dynamics for the transition in Fig. 2.

    The coupling relationship in Eq. (15) leads to the relative production rate for η1L and η1H as follows:

    rL/HBR(J/ψγη1L)BR(J/ψγη1H)=(|qL||qH|)3(2cosαRsinα)2(2sinα+Rcosα)2m2η1H(m2J/ψ+m2η1L)m2η1L(m2J/ψ+m2η1H) ,

    (17)

    which seems to be sensitive to the mixing angle α. Note that, in Refs. [1, 2] the η1(1855) signal is actually observed in its decays into ηη. Moreover, the PWA results suggest that only one I=0 hybrid state has been clearly observed in the 1+ partial wave amplitude. As illustrated in Subsection II.B, the decays of η1L and η1H into ηη are strongly correlated with the mixing angle α and mechanisms for the flux tube breaking. This implies that the following branching ratio fractions can serve as constraints on the mixing angle:

    SchemeI:Rη1L/η1(1855)BR(J/ψγη1Lγηη)BR(J/ψγη1(1855)γηη)<10% ,

    (18)

    and

    SchemeII:Rη1H/η1(1855)BR(J/ψγη1Hγηη)BR(J/ψγη1(1855)γηη)<10% ,

    (19)

    where we have assigned η1(1855) as either the higher mass state (Scheme-I) or the lower mass state (Scheme-II). The relative rate (10%) is the production upper limit for the partner of η1(1855) from the experimental measurement [1, 2].

    With the earlier extracted production and decay couplings, the general form for the joint branching ratio fraction can be expressed as:

    Rη1L/η1H=(|qL||qH|)3(2cosαRsinα)2(2sinα+Rcosα)2m2η1H(m2J/ψ+m2η1L)m2η1L(m2J/ψ+m2η1H)×(|kL||kH|)3(ΓHmη1HΓLmη1L)2×[(1+δ)tan2αP(cosα+Rsinα)+2δ(Rcosαsinα)]2[(1+δ)tan2αP(sinαRcosα)+2δ(Rsinα+cosα)]2 ,

    (20)

    where ΓL and ΓH represent the total widths of the lower and higher mass states, respectively; qL,H and kL,H denote the three-vector momenta of the photon and pseudoscalar meson in the rest frames of J/ψ and ηL,H, respectively; and δg2/g1 indicates the relative strength between the two decay mechanisms for the flux tube breaking. As discussed earlier, |δ|1 is for the hybrid decays, while |δ|<<1 is for conventional qˉq decays. In Eq. (21), if we approximate ΓH/ΓL1, the ratio Rη1L/η1H will strongly depend on α and δ.

    Before we go into the detailed studies of the two schemes, we briefly summarize the present experimental information on the strange vector mesons. As presented by the Particle Data Group (PDG) [36], two excited K states are observed in the experiment, i.e. K(1410) and K(1680). Although K(1410) can be well accommodated by the first radial excitations of the vector meson nonet, the property of K(1680) is far from being well explored. Note that the second radial excitations of the isoscalar pseudoscalar mesons can be occupied by η(1760) and η(1860) in the Regge trajectory [37], and the mass of K(1680), as the second radial excitation in the conventional qˉq vector nonet, tends to be negligible. We also note that the strange pseudoscalar partner in the second radial excitation nonet has not yet been established in experiments, although K(1630) could be a candidate [36]. In the following analysis, we first consider K(1680) as the strange partner of the 1(+) nonet and examine whether it fits the constraint. Otherwise, we investigate the mass correlation of K with the mixing angle and other multiplets as required by the Gell-Mann-Okubo relationship.

    1   Scheme-I

    With the η1(1855) assigned as the higher mass state, and π1(1600) and K(1680) assigned as the I=1 and strange partner, respectively, we extract mη1L=1712.5±8.7 MeV from Eq. (7), and the mixing angle α=30±13. The uncertainties are given by the mass uncertainties from π1(1600) and K(1680) via the Gell-Mann-Okubo relationship. We note that the PDG values [36] are adopted for the masses of these two states, i.e. mπ1=1661±13 MeV and mK=1718±18 MeV. From Eq. (6), we can extract the correlation between the mixing angle and the K mass, and the obtained results are presented in Fig. 3.

    Figure 3

    Figure 3.  (color online) Correlation of the mixing angle α with the K mass. The uncertainties are due to the mass uncertainties for those input states. The shadowed area indicates the mass range of K from PDG [36].

    Although the uncertainties of the mixing angle α tend to be rather large, it indicates significant mixings between the flavor octet and singlet, and apparently deviates from the ideal mixing. This appears to be a necessary consequence provided there is only one I=0 hybrid state observed in the ηη channel in J/ψγηη. Nevertheless, it favors the hybrid scenario to have important contributions from the transverse mode of the flux tube motions. To illustrate this, we first consider Eq. (18), where by taking the limit of ideal mixing, i.e. α=0, the production ratio rL/H2 can be obtained. Note that the ratio rL/H is insensitive to the phase space factor and SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking parameter R.

    In the case where η1(1855) is the higher mass state, the ratio Rη1L/η1H defined in Eq. (21) can be compared with the experimental observables with Rη1L/η1(1855) < 10%. In the ideal mixing limit, we have

    Rη1L/η1(1855)(|qL||qH|)3(|kL||kH|)3m2η1H(m2J/ψ+m2η1L)m2η1L(m2J/ψ+m2η1H)×(ΓHmHΓLmL)22R2[(1+δ)tan2αP+2RδR(1+δ)tan2αP2δ]2 .

    (21)

    Note that the product (|qL||qH|)3(|kL||kH|)3m2η1H(m2J/ψ+m2η1L)m2η1L(m2J/ψ+m2η1H)(ΓHmHΓLmL)2 actually enhances the ratio, while tan2αP10 will further push the ratio up. It thus relies on the value of δ to decide the value of Rη1L/η1H. As discussed earlier, for conventional qˉq meson decays, one would expect δ0. It actually leads to Rη1L/η1H>1, which contradicts the experimental observation. For the hybrid decays, the transverse mode of the flux tube motions plays an important role in the decays. It implies that |δ|1, or is even the dominant transition mechanism with |δ|>1. Eventually, to obtain Rη1L/η1(1855) < 10%, as suggested by the experimental data, it is observed that δ should take a negative value, and the absolute value is at O(1).

    In Fig. 4, with the mixing angle α within its uncertainty range, i.e. α=30±13, we plot the ratios rL/H and Rη1L/η1(1855). For demonstration, we adopt δ=0.8,  1.0, 1.2 to calculate Rη1L/η1(1855). It shows that rL/H is not sufficiently suppressed while the decays via the transverse mode play a dominant role in suppressing the low-mass state. Although we cannot provide a precise value for δ based on the present experimental results, we deduce that the relative sign between g1 and g2 and their relative strength can consistently reflect the hybrid features.

    Figure 4

    Figure 4.  (color online) Dependence of the ratios rL/H and Rη1L/η1(1855) on the mixing angle α within the preferred range of α(17, 43). In Scheme-I η(1855) is the high-mass state. On the left panel the solid line is for rL/H, while on the right panel the dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines correspond to the ratio Rη1L/η1(1855) with δ=0.8, 1.0, 1.2, respectively.

    In Fig. 5, we illustrate the 1(+) nonet in Scheme-I. The shadowed ranges depict the mass uncertainties while the central dashed lines denote the preferred mass.

    Figure 5

    Figure 5.  (color online) The 1(+) hybrid nonet with mass uncertainties determined in Scheme-I. Namely, η1(1855) is assigned as the higher mass state with I=0.
    2   Scheme-II

    With the η1(1855) assigned as the lower mass state, and π1(1600) maintained as the I=1 partner, the determination of the lower I=0 state will be differently correlated with the mass of the strange partner. This implies that K(1680) is no longer suitable for being the strange partner of the nonet. This can be easily observed using Eq. (7), which is symmetric to η1L and η1H. If the same K mass is taken, the solution for the other η1 mass will be a lower one, as in Scheme-I, and η1(1855) will be maintained at a higher mass state.

    Therefore, searching for the higher mass partner of η1(1855) requires a higher K mass as input. As discussed earlier, to date, we still lack experimental information about the vector strange spectrum. Fortunately, if we impose the BESIII observation as a constraint again, we should obtain the inverse form of Eq. (21) to satisfy Eq. (20). In such a case, we determine that the mixing angle remains located around α(25,45) corresponding to mK1.831.90 GeV. Meanwhile, it shows that δ remains at O(1), but favors a positive sign. In fact, the sign and magnitude of δ turn out to be very sensitive to the experimental constraint, which can be analytically observed using Eq. (21).

    Similar to Fig. 3, we plot in Fig. 6, the correlation between the mixing angle α and the K mass. The preferred K mass is mK1.831.90 GeV corresponding to the range of α=2545.

    Figure 6

    Figure 6.  (color online) Correlation of the mixing angle α with the K mass in Scheme-II. The uncertainties are due to the mass uncertainties for those input states.

    In Fig. 7, we present the results for rH/L and Rη1H/η1(1855) in terms of the mixing angle α within its uncertainty range, i.e. α=2545. It is interesting to see that in Scheme-II, the production of η(1855) in J/ψγη1L,1H as the low-mass state is actually comparable with the higher one. It is the decay transition of η1Lηη that strongly enhances the signal of η1(1855) in the ηη channel while the higher mass state is suppressed owing to its weak coupling to the ηη channel. Again, we observe the dominance of the transverse mode in the hybrid decays. For demonstrations, we adopt δ=0.8, 1.0, 1.2 to calculate Rη1H/η1(1855), which are presented on the right panel of Fig. 7.

    Figure 7

    Figure 7.  (color online) The dependence of the ratios rH/L and Rη1H/η1(1855) on the mixing angle α within the preferred range of α(25, 45). In Scheme-II, η1(1855) is the low-mass state. On the left panel the solid line is for rH/L, while on the right panel the dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines correspond to the ratio Rη1H/η1(1855) with δ=0.8, 1.0, 1.2, respectively.

    In Fig. 8, we illustrate the 1(+) nonet in Scheme-II. The shadowed ranges represent the mass uncertainties and the central dashed lines denote the preferred mass.

    Figure 8

    Figure 8.  (color online) The 1(+) hybrid nonet with mass uncertainties determined in Scheme-II. Namely, η1(1855) is assigned as the lower mass state with I=0.

    Comparing these two nonet schemes, it demonstrates that the transverse mode plays an important role for understanding the decay pattern observed in experiment. The relative sign between the transverse and longitudinal modes should decide the scheme that is the physical one. However, based on the present experimental information, it is impossible to conclude. We would look forward to further observations, to provide a constraint on the sign from the experiment. Meanwhile, we note that the LQCD calculations of these two decay modes may also be beneficial in determining their relative signs.

    To further investigate the characters emerging from the nonet structure of the 1(+) hybrid states, we analyze the hadronic decays of J/ψVH and search for signals for the I=0 partner of η1(1855). Here, V denotes the vector mesons ρ, ω, and ϕ, while H represents the light hybrid multiplets. This process is illustrated in Fig. 9, and the leading-order Lagrangian is given in Eq. (10). The coupling for J/ψ[qˉq]1[qˉq˜g]1+ can be parametrized as

    Figure 9

    Figure 9.  (color online) Illustration of the production process for the 1(+) hybrid states in J/ψVH where V denotes the light vector mesons ρ, ω, ϕ and K(892).

    gP[qˉq]1[qˉq˜g]1+|ˆVP|J/ψ ,

    (22)

    where ˆVP represents the potential for the hadronic decays of J/ψVH. In addition, the detailed coupling constants for different decay channels are expressed as follows:

    gJ/ψρ+π1=gP,gJ/ψωη1L=gPcosα ,gJ/ψωη1H=gPsinα ,gJ/ψϕη1L=gPR2sinα ,gJ/ψϕη1H=gPR2cosα ,gJ/ψK+KH=gPR ,

    (23)

    where R is the SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking factor defined earlier. In this Section, to distinguish the hybrid K from K(892), we denote it as KH. In addition to the partial wave factor (|q|3), which should be included for each channel and a mass function that has the same form for each channel, the branching ratio fractions among all the VH decay channels will be driven by the following relative strengths:

    ρ+π1:ωη1L:ωη1H:ϕη1L:ϕη1H:K+KH=1:cos2α:sin2α:R4sin2α:R4cos2α:R2 .

    (24)

    Note that for the total of ρπ, a factor of 3 should be multiplied to the ρ+π1 channel, while the total of KˉKH+c.c., a factor of 4 should be multiplied to the K+KH channel.

    If we consider the effects emerging from the partial wave factor and the SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking factor R, we observe that the ρπ1 channel has the largest branching ratio, while the production strengths for most of the other channels are actually comparable with α30. In particular, this suggests that the production of η1L and η1H are accessible in the same channel such as J/ψωηη. This differs from the case of J/ψγηη.

    It should also be interesting to study the J/ψKˉKH+c.c. channel. Because KH has JP=1, which is the same as the radial excitation states of the vector K(892), it is difficult to identify the hybrid-like state. However, as discussed earlier, the isolated K(1680), either as a radial excitation state of K(892) or a hybrid state, will provide crucial understandings on the K spectrum. In the hybrid scenario, KH will prefer decaying into K1πKππ. This implies that J/ψKˉKππππ will be ideal for the KH search.

    In Fig. 10, we plot the branching ratio fractions in Scheme-I for each channels with respect to J/ψρ+π1, for which we set it as unity, while the other channels are normalized to the ρ+π1 channel with R=0.93 adopted. The favored range of the mixing angle is approximately α(17,43). However, a relatively broad range is plotted in Fig. 10 as an illustration. The dependence of the mixing angle produces certain patterns, which makes the combined study of the VH channel beneficial for the further verification of the 1(+) nonet.

    Figure 10

    Figure 10.  (color online) Predicted branching ratio fractions for BR(J/ψVH)/BR(J/ψρ+π1) in terms of α in Scheme-I.

    For the results of Scheme-II, the ωη1H and ϕη1H thresholds are higher than the J/ψ mass. A combined study can be conducted in other higher heavy quarkonium decays such as ΥVH.

    Inspired by the observation of the isoscalar 1+ hybrid candidate η1(1855) in J/ψγη1(1855)γηη, we investigated its SU(3) flavor partners using a parametrization method based on the flux tube model picture. We demonstrated that, although the present experimental information remains limited, it could depict the 1(+) nonet of which the production and decays were consistent with the expectations of the flux tube model. We determined that the observation of a single η1(1855) in the ηη channel is informative and can impose relatively strong constraints on the hybrid scenario. In particular, it suggests that the flavor octet and singlet mixing would be apparently deviated from the SU(3) ideal mixing, which indicates the importance of the quark annihilation effects. In the flux tube model, this implies that the transverse mode of the flux tube motions is important.

    We examined two schemes for the 1(+) hybrid nonet by assigning the observed η1(1855) to be either the high or low mass state with I=0. In both cases, we determined that the requirement that one I=0 state should be highly suppressed in J/ψγηη will also impose a strong constraint on the hybrid K mass. For the case in which η1(1855) was the higher mass state, K(1680) appeared capable of filling the nonet chart reasonably well. For the case in which η1(1855) was the lower mass state, a new state K(1860) was predicted. We deduced that one of the main differences between these two solutions lies on the relative sign between the transverse and longitudinal modes of the gluonic motions in the decay of the I=0 hybrid states. This implies that additional constraints from other processes are required. As a strongly correlated process, we suggest a combined study of J/ψVH, to clarify the difference between these two schemes. Notice that the ρπ1 production rate was expected to be significant and specific pattern actually emerged from the hybrid scenario. Hence, further evidences for η1(1855) and its partner in J/ψVH at BESIII would be crucial to ultimately establish the 1(+) nonet.

    The authors thank Xiao-Hai Liu and Alessandro Pilloni for their useful comments and discussions.

    1) Due to Bose symmetry, the \begin{document}$ 1^{-+} $\end{document} hybrid cannot decay into two identical mesons. Namely, the decays into \begin{document}$ \pi^0\pi^0 $\end{document}, \begin{document}$ \eta\eta $\end{document}, and \begin{document}$ \eta'\eta' $\end{document} are forbidden. Also, the G-parity conservation will forbid the decays of \begin{document}$ \pi_1 $\end{document} and \begin{document}$ \eta_1 $\end{document} into \begin{document}$ \pi\pi $\end{document} and \begin{document}$ K\bar{K}. $\end{document}

    [1] M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), arXiv: 220200621[hep-ex]
    [2] M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), arXiv: 220200623[hep-ex]
    [3] G. T. Condo et al., Phys. Rev. D 43, 2787-2791 (1991) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.43.2787
    [4] G. M. Beladidze et al., Phys. Lett. B 313, 276-282 (1993) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(93)91224-B
    [5] J. H. Lee, S. U. Chung, H. G. Kirk et al., Phys. Lett. B 323, 227-232 (1994) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(94)90296-8
    [6] H. Aoyagi, S. Fukui, T. Hasegawa et al., Phys. Lett. B 314, 246-254 (1993) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(93)90456-R
    [7] D. R. Thompson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1630-1633 (1997), arXiv:hep-ex/9705011[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1630
    [8] S. U. Chung et al., Phys. Rev. D 60, 092001 (1999), arXiv:hep-ex/9902003[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.092001
    [9] E. Klempt and A. Zaitsev, Phys. Rept. 454, 1-202 (2007), arXiv:0708.4016[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.07.006
    [10] C. A. Meyer and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 82, 21-58 (2015), arXiv:1502.07276[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.03.001
    [11] M. Alekseev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 241803 (2010), arXiv:0910.5842[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.241803
    [12] E. I. Ivanov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3977-3980 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0101058[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3977
    [13] C. Adolph et al., Phys. Lett. B 740, 303-311 (2015), arXiv:1408.4286[hep-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.11.058
    [14] M. Aghasyan et al., Phys. Rev. D 98(9), 092003 (2018), arXiv:1802.05913[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.092003
    [15] G. D. Alexeev et al., Phys. Rev. D 105(1), 012005 (2022), arXiv:2108.01744[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.012005
    [16] R. T. Deck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 169-173 (1964) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.169
    [17] A. Rodas et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 122(4), 042002 (2019), arXiv:1810.04171[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.042002
    [18] D. Horn and J. Mandula, Phys. Rev. D 17, 898 (1978) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.17.898
    [19] T. Barnes and F. E. Close, Phys. Lett. B 116, 365-368 (1982) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(82)90301-X
    [20] N. Isgur and J. E. Paton, Phys. Rev. D 31, 2910 (1985) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.31.2910
    [21] T. Barnes, F. E. Close, and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 52, 5242-5256 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9501405[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.52.5242
    [22] P. R. Page, E. S. Swanson, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D 59, 034016 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9808346[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.034016
    [23] F. E. Close and J. J. Dudek, Phys. Rev. D 70, 094015 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0308099[hep-phx doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.094015
    [24] S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 60, 097502 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9903537[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.097502
    [25] P. Z. Huang, H. X. Chen, and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 83, 014021 (2011), arXiv:1010.2293[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.014021
    [26] H. X. Chen, Z. X. Cai, P. Z. Huang et al., Phys. Rev. D 83, 014006 (2011), arXiv:1010.3974[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.014006
    [27] X. Zhang and J. J. Xie, Chin. Phys. C 44(5), 054104 (2020), arXiv:1906.07340[nucl-th doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/44/5/054104
    [28] J. J. Dudek et al., Phys. Rev. D 88(9), 094505 (2013), arXiv:1309.2608[hep-lat doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.094505
    [29] J. J. Dudek, Phys. Rev. D 84, 074023 (2011), arXiv:1106.5515[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.074023
    [30] G. S. Bali and A. Pineda, Phys. Rev. D 69, 094001 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0310130[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.094001
    [31] F. E. Close and A. Kirk, Phys. Lett. B 483, 345-352 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0004241[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00623-7
    [32] F. E. Close and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 71, 094022 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504043[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.094022
    [33] Q. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 659, 221-227 (2008), arXiv:0705.0101[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.10.062
    [34] Q. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 636, 197-200 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602216[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.03.043
    [35] R. Kokoski and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 35, 907 (1987) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.35.907
    [36] P. A. Zyla et al., PTEP 2020(8), 083C01 (2020) doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa104
    [37] J. S. Yu, Z. F. Sun, X. Liu et al., Phys. Rev. D 83, 114007 (2011), arXiv:1104.3064[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.114007
  • [1] M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), arXiv: 220200621[hep-ex]
    [2] M. Ablikim et al. (BESIII Collaboration), arXiv: 220200623[hep-ex]
    [3] G. T. Condo et al., Phys. Rev. D 43, 2787-2791 (1991) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.43.2787
    [4] G. M. Beladidze et al., Phys. Lett. B 313, 276-282 (1993) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(93)91224-B
    [5] J. H. Lee, S. U. Chung, H. G. Kirk et al., Phys. Lett. B 323, 227-232 (1994) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(94)90296-8
    [6] H. Aoyagi, S. Fukui, T. Hasegawa et al., Phys. Lett. B 314, 246-254 (1993) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(93)90456-R
    [7] D. R. Thompson et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 1630-1633 (1997), arXiv:hep-ex/9705011[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.79.1630
    [8] S. U. Chung et al., Phys. Rev. D 60, 092001 (1999), arXiv:hep-ex/9902003[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.092001
    [9] E. Klempt and A. Zaitsev, Phys. Rept. 454, 1-202 (2007), arXiv:0708.4016[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2007.07.006
    [10] C. A. Meyer and E. S. Swanson, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 82, 21-58 (2015), arXiv:1502.07276[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.03.001
    [11] M. Alekseev et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 104, 241803 (2010), arXiv:0910.5842[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.104.241803
    [12] E. I. Ivanov et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 3977-3980 (2001), arXiv:hep-ex/0101058[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3977
    [13] C. Adolph et al., Phys. Lett. B 740, 303-311 (2015), arXiv:1408.4286[hep-ex doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2014.11.058
    [14] M. Aghasyan et al., Phys. Rev. D 98(9), 092003 (2018), arXiv:1802.05913[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.092003
    [15] G. D. Alexeev et al., Phys. Rev. D 105(1), 012005 (2022), arXiv:2108.01744[hep-ex doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.105.012005
    [16] R. T. Deck, Phys. Rev. Lett. 13, 169-173 (1964) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.13.169
    [17] A. Rodas et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 122(4), 042002 (2019), arXiv:1810.04171[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.122.042002
    [18] D. Horn and J. Mandula, Phys. Rev. D 17, 898 (1978) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.17.898
    [19] T. Barnes and F. E. Close, Phys. Lett. B 116, 365-368 (1982) doi: 10.1016/0370-2693(82)90301-X
    [20] N. Isgur and J. E. Paton, Phys. Rev. D 31, 2910 (1985) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.31.2910
    [21] T. Barnes, F. E. Close, and E. S. Swanson, Phys. Rev. D 52, 5242-5256 (1995), arXiv:hep-ph/9501405[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.52.5242
    [22] P. R. Page, E. S. Swanson, and A. P. Szczepaniak, Phys. Rev. D 59, 034016 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9808346[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.59.034016
    [23] F. E. Close and J. J. Dudek, Phys. Rev. D 70, 094015 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0308099[hep-phx doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.70.094015
    [24] S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 60, 097502 (1999), arXiv:hep-ph/9903537[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.097502
    [25] P. Z. Huang, H. X. Chen, and S. L. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D 83, 014021 (2011), arXiv:1010.2293[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.014021
    [26] H. X. Chen, Z. X. Cai, P. Z. Huang et al., Phys. Rev. D 83, 014006 (2011), arXiv:1010.3974[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.014006
    [27] X. Zhang and J. J. Xie, Chin. Phys. C 44(5), 054104 (2020), arXiv:1906.07340[nucl-th doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/44/5/054104
    [28] J. J. Dudek et al., Phys. Rev. D 88(9), 094505 (2013), arXiv:1309.2608[hep-lat doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.094505
    [29] J. J. Dudek, Phys. Rev. D 84, 074023 (2011), arXiv:1106.5515[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.84.074023
    [30] G. S. Bali and A. Pineda, Phys. Rev. D 69, 094001 (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0310130[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.69.094001
    [31] F. E. Close and A. Kirk, Phys. Lett. B 483, 345-352 (2000), arXiv:hep-ph/0004241[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(00)00623-7
    [32] F. E. Close and Q. Zhao, Phys. Rev. D 71, 094022 (2005), arXiv:hep-ph/0504043[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.094022
    [33] Q. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 659, 221-227 (2008), arXiv:0705.0101[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2007.10.062
    [34] Q. Zhao, Phys. Lett. B 636, 197-200 (2006), arXiv:hep-ph/0602216[hep-ph doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2006.03.043
    [35] R. Kokoski and N. Isgur, Phys. Rev. D 35, 907 (1987) doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.35.907
    [36] P. A. Zyla et al., PTEP 2020(8), 083C01 (2020) doi: 10.1093/ptep/ptaa104
    [37] J. S. Yu, Z. F. Sun, X. Liu et al., Phys. Rev. D 83, 114007 (2011), arXiv:1104.3064[hep-ph doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.114007
  • 加载中

Cited by

1. Liang, J., Chen, S., Chen, Y. et al. Decay properties of light 1−+ hybrids[J]. Science China: Physics, Mechanics and Astronomy, 2025, 68(5): 251011. doi: 10.1007/s11433-024-2588-0
2. Liu, Z.-S., Chen, X.-L., Lian, D.-K. et al. Mixing angle of K1 (1270/1400) and the K K ¯ 1 (1400) molecular interpretation of η1 (1855)[J]. Physical Review D, 2025, 111(1): 014014. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.111.014014
3. Xi, H.-Z., Chen, H.-X., Chen, W. et al. Charmoniumlike states with the exotic quantum number JPC=3-+[J]. Physical Review D, 2024, 110(9): 094031. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.094031
4. Tan, W.-H., Su, N., Chen, H.-X. Light single-gluon hybrid states with various exotic quantum numbers[J]. Physical Review D, 2024, 110(3): 034031. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.034031
5. Wang, Q.-N., Lian, D.-K., Chen, W. Light tetraquark states with exotic quantum numbers JPC=2+-[J]. Physical Review D, 2024, 110(3): 034022. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.034022
6. Alaakol, A., Agaev, S.S., Azizi, K. et al. Mass spectra of heavy hybrid quarkonia and b‾gc mesons[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2024. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2024.138711
7. Lian, D.-K., Wang, Q.-N., Chen, X.-L. et al. Revisit the heavy quarkonium double-gluon hybrid mesons with exotic quantum numbers[J]. Journal of High Energy Physics, 2024, 2024(6): 173. doi: 10.1007/JHEP06(2024)173
8. Shi, C., Chen, Y., Gong, M. et al. Decays of 1-+ charmoniumlike hybrid using lattice QCD[J]. Physical Review D, 2024, 109(9): 094513. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.094513
9. Farina, C., Swanson, E.S. Constituent model of light hybrid meson decays[J]. Physical Review D, 2024, 109(9): 094015. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.094015
10. Ma, R.. Observation of isoscalar 1−+ spin-exotic state η1(1855)[J]. Nuovo Cimento della Societa Italiana di Fisica C, 2024, 47(4): 182. doi: 10.1393/ncc/i2024-24182-0
11. Su, N., Chen, H.-X., Chen, W. et al. Double-gluon charmonium hybrid states with various exotic quantum numbers[J]. Physical Review D, 2024, 109(1): 37-41. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.L011502
12. Wang, Q.-N., Lian, D.-K., Chen, W. Predictions of the hybrid mesons with exotic quantum numbers JPC=2+-[J]. Physical Review D, 2023, 108(11): 114010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.114010
13. Xi, H.-Z., Jiang, Y.-W., Chen, H.-X. et al. Fully strange tetraquark states with the exotic quantum numbers JPC=0+- and 2+-[J]. Physical Review D, 2023, 108(9): 094019. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.094019
14. Chen, B., Luo, S.-Q., Liu, X. Constructing the JP (C)=1- (+) light flavor hybrid nonet with the newly observed η1 (1855)[J]. Physical Review D, 2023, 108(5): 054034. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.108.054034
15. Huang, Y., Zhu, H.Q. Revealing the inner structure of the newly observed η 1(1855) via photoproduction[J]. Journal of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics, 2023, 50(9): 095002. doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/ace4e2
16. Shastry, V., Giacosa, F. Radiative production and decays of the exotic η1′(1855) and its siblings[J]. Nuclear Physics A, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2023.122683
17. Yu, Y., Xiong, Z., Zhang, H. et al. Investigating the η1′(1855) exotic state in the J/ψ→η1′(1855)η(′) decays[J]. Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics, 2023. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2023.137965
18. Su, N., Tan, W.-H., Chen, H.-X. et al. Light double-gluon hybrid states with the exotic quantum numbers JPC=1-+ and 3-+[J]. Physical Review D, 2023, 107(11): 114005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.114005
19. Chen, F., Jiang, X., Chen, Y. et al. 1-+ hybrid meson in J /ψ radiative decays from lattice QCD[J]. Physical Review D, 2023, 107(5): 054511. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.054511
20. Yan, M.-J., Dias, J.M., Guevara, A. et al. On the η1(1855), π1(1400) and π1(1600) as Dynamically Generated States and Their SU(3) Partners[J]. Universe, 2023, 9(2): 109. doi: 10.3390/universe9020109
21. Su, N., Chen, H.-X., Chen, W. et al. Light double-gluon hybrid states from QCD sum rules[J]. Physical Review D, 2023, 107(3): 034010. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.107.034010
22. Chen, H.-X., Chen, W., Liu, X. et al. An updated review of the new hadron states[J]. Reports on Progress in Physics, 2023, 86(2): 026201. doi: 10.1088/1361-6633/aca3b6
23. Dong, R.-R., Su, N., Chen, H.-X. Highly excited and exotic fully-strange tetraquark states[J]. European Physical Journal C, 2022, 82(11): 983. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10955-0
24. Wan, B.-D., Zhang, S.-Q., Qiao, C.-F. Possible structure of the newly found exotic state η1 (1855)[J]. Physical Review D, 2022, 106(7): 074003. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.074003
25. Wang, X.-Y., Zeng, F.-C., Liu, X. Production of the η1 (1855) through kaon induced reactions under the assumptions that it is a molecular or a hybrid state[J]. Physical Review D, 2022, 106(3): 036005. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.036005
26. Su, N., Chen, H.-X. S - And P -wave fully strange tetraquark states from QCD sum rules[J]. Physical Review D, 2022, 106(1): 014023. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.014023
27. Hou, G.. Light Meson Spectroscopy at BESIII[J]. Proceedings of Science, 2022.

Figures(10) / Tables(1)

Get Citation
Lin Qiu and Qiang Zhao. Towards the establishment of the light JP(C)=1-(+) hybrid nonet[J]. Chinese Physics C. doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac567e
Lin Qiu and Qiang Zhao. Towards the establishment of the light JP(C)=1-(+) hybrid nonet[J]. Chinese Physics C.  doi: 10.1088/1674-1137/ac567e shu
Milestone
Received: 2022-02-07
Article Metric

Article Views(2241)
PDF Downloads(72)
Cited by(28)
Policy on re-use
To reuse of Open Access content published by CPC, for content published under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license (“CC CY”), the users don’t need to request permission to copy, distribute and display the final published version of the article and to create derivative works, subject to appropriate attribution.
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Email This Article

Title:
Email:

Towards the establishment of the light JP (C )=1–(+) hybrid nonet

  • 1. Institute of High Energy Physics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
  • 2. University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
  • 3. China Center of Advanced Science and Technology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100080, China

Abstract: The observation of the light hybrid candidate η1(1855) by the BESIII Collaboration offers great opportunities for advancing our knowledge on exotic hadrons in terms of flavor sector. We demonstrate that this observation provides a crucial clue for establishing the JP(C)=1(+) hybrid nonet. Based on the flux tube model picture, the production and decay mechanisms for the JP(C)=1(+) hybrid nonet in the J/ψ radiative decays into two pseudoscalar mesons are investigated. In the I=0 sector, we deduce that the SU(3) flavor octet and singlet mixing is non-negligible and apparently deviates from the flavor ideal mixing. Because only signals for one isoscalar η1(1855) are observed in the ηη channel, we investigate two schemes of the nonet structure in which η1(1855) can either be the higher or lower mass state that strongly couples to ηη. Possible channels for detecting the multiplets are suggested. In particular, a combined analysis of the hybrid production in J/ψVH, where V and H denote the light vector mesons and 1(+) hybrid states, respectively, may provide further evidence for this nonet structure and ultimately establish these mysterious exotic species in the experiment.

    HTML

    I.   INTRODUCTION
    • In the conventional quark model mesons are made of quark-anti-quark (qˉq) and baryons are made of three quarks (qqq). Such a simple picture has achieved significant successes in the description of hadron spectra based on the constituent quark degrees of freedom. Meanwhile, as the fundamental theory for strong interactions, QCD predicts the existence of hadrons with more sophisticated structures, namely, exotic hadrons. These states, of which the structures are beyond the conventional quark model, have been a crucial probe for the non-perturbative phenomena of QCD. Among all the exotic candidates, hadrons with such quantum numbers that cannot be accommodated by the conventional quark model, would serve as a "smoking gun" for the existence of exotic hadrons. In particular, "hybrid", which contains the explicit excitations of the constituent-like gluonic degrees of freedom, can access the exotic quantum numbers of JPC=1+ as the lowest eigenstates. Its study has always garnered considerable attention from both experiments and theory.

      In Refs. [1, 2], the BESIII Collaboration reports the first observation of the 1+ isoscalar hybrid candidate η1(1855) in the partial wave analysis of J/ψγη1(1855)γηη. Its mass and width are (1855±9+61) MeV and (188±18+38) MeV, respectively. This progress may provide a great opportunity for a better understanding of these mysterious species of the QCD-predicted exotic states.

      Historically, evidences for the 1+ hybrid were found by various experiments [38]; in addition, two light hybrid candidates, π1(1400) and π1(1600), were reported. However, owing to the limited statistics, their existences were far from broadly accepted. A comprehensive review of the early experimental results can be found in Refs. [9, 10]. Strong indication of the 1+ hybrid π1(1600) is obtained from the COMPASS Collaboration based on their partial wave analysis (PWA) results for πppπ+ππ [1114]. In a recent detailed analysis [15] by COMPASS, it shows that the π1(1600) signal cannot be accounted for by the Deck effect [16]. A reanalysis of the COMPASS data with the coupled-channel approach also supports that the π1(1600) signal should be originated from a pole structure in the scattering amplitude [17]. These results have provided strong evidences for π1(1600) as a well-established 1+ hybrid candidate. In contrast, the signals for π1(1400) are ultimately vague. According to the analysis of Ref. [17], there is no need for the π1(1400) to be present in the ρπ channel.

      Phenomenological studies on the 1+ hybrid state can be found in the literature. By treating the gluonic excitation as an explicit constituent degree of freedom, phenomenological models were constructed to understand the exotic hadron spectrum or describe the mechanisms for their productions and decays [18, 19]. Among all these efforts, the flux tube model has achieved significant success in accommodating the broadly adopted quark pair creation (QPC) model for the strong decays of conventional hadrons and gluonic excitations of QCD exotics [2023]. Calculations in the framework of QCD sum rules also provide interesting results on the properties of the light hybrid π1 state [24, 25]. In Ref. [26], the decay properties are studied for π1 and its non-strange isoscalar partner. In Ref. [27], it is investigated that an isoscalar with IG(JPC)=0+(1+) may be formed as a bound state of ηˉKK. However, the mass is much lower than η1(1855).

      There is no doubt that lattice QCD (LQCD) simulations should play a crucial role in guiding the search for the hybrid states. In Ref. [28], the first systematic LQCD study on the excited isoscalar meson spectra was presented. It is interesting to observe the emergence of the mixing patterns between the SU(3) flavor singlet and octet such as the η and η mixing. In the 1+ hybrid sector, some hints for the mixing between the non-strange and strange configurations are found. Meanwhile, its prediction of the isoscalar 1+ hybrid spectrum indicates relatively higher masses than the light axial vector mesons. It implies an unusual behavior of the excitations of the gluonic degrees of freedom in comparison with the orbital excitations within conventional qˉq systems.

      In light of the discovery of η1(1855) by BESIII [1, 2] and the LQCD simulations [28, 29], we propose a nonet scheme for the 1(+) hybrid states. In this scheme, π1(1600) is the I=1 state with the lowest mass, and η1(1855) is identified as one of the I=0 multiplets. The strange I=1/2 partner is assigned to K(1680), which is the only strange vector meson found in the vicinity of the 1.61.9 GeV mass region. Although the strange hybrid does not have a fixed charge conjugate parity, it cannot be easily distinguished from the conventional qˉq vector meson; hence, there is no strong reason to suggest that such an exotic object should not exist. Considering the flavor-blind property of QCD, the strange hybrid of qˉs˜g should at least share similar dynamics as the I=1 partner π1(1600). In Ref. [28], the mass splitting between the flavor singlet and octet is determined to be significant. This is attributed to the important effects from the quark annihilations in the I=0 sector.

      As follows, we first analyse the mixing between η1(1855) and its isoscalar partner, and the mass relationships among the 1(+) hybrid nonet. Two schemes, in which η1(1855) is assigned to be either the higher or lower mass state in the I=0 sector, are explored based on the flux tube model picture. Phenomenological consequences will be discussed in their productions and decays in several typical processes. A brief summary will be given in the end.

    II.   PRODUCTIONS AND DECAYS OF THE 1(+) HYBRID STATES

      A.   Emergence of the 1(+) hybrid nonet

    • On the SU(3) flavor basis, the light hybrid mesons are described by a pair of qˉq associated by gluonic quasiparticle excitations. Taking the flux tube model picture, the qˉq inside hybrid mesons are separated static color sources and are connected by the gluonic flux tube, to form an overall color singlet. The transverse oscillations of the flux tube that manifest the explicit effective gluonic degrees of freedom, will lead to the energy spectrum of the hybrid mesons. As studied in the literature, the lowest energy flux tube motion has JPCg=1+. Namely, the lightest hybrid multiplet can be formed by the relative S-wave coupling between a gluonic lump of JPCg=1+ and an S-wave qˉq pair. With the total gluon spin JPCg=1+, the lowest hybrid multiplets can be obtained: (0, 1, 2)+, 1 [29, 30]. Alternatively, in the constituent gluon picture, the lowest energy flux tube excitation can be described by the motion of quasigluon in a P wave, with respect to the S-wave qˉq.

      The gluonic excitations additive to the S-wave constituent qˉq configuration suggest that for each S-wave qˉq pair, there should exist an SU(3) flavor nonet as the eigenstates of the corresponding Hamiltonian. For the same coupling mode involving the gluonic lump, these states can be related to each other by the Gell-Mann-Okubo mass relationship similar to that for the ground states in the qˉq scenario. This conjecture may have a caveat when the strange multiplets are included. Because the charged and strange states do not have the fixed C parity, this may raise the question whether a nonet scheme is feasible. Note that signals for charged π1(1600) have been seen in the decay channels of ρ0π [11] and ηπ [12, 13]. Similar dynamics should appear in the strange sector and a nonet structure among the 1(+) multiplets should provide optimal guidance for a better understanding of the underlying dynamics.

      Taking the 1+ hybrid as an example, it should contain flavor multiplets as follows:

      π+1, π1, π01:uˉd˜g, dˉu˜g, 12(uˉudˉd)˜g ,

      (1)

      η(8)1:16(uˉu+dˉd2sˉs)˜g ,

      (2)

      η(1)1:13(uˉu+dˉd+sˉs)˜g ,

      (3)

      K+, K0, K, ˉK0:uˉs˜g, dˉs˜g, sˉu˜g, sˉd˜g ,

      (4)

      where ˜g represents the gluonic lump with JPCg=1+. For the flavor octet η(8)1 and singlet η(1)1 with isospin I=0, they may mix with each other to form the corresponding physical states similar to the familiar ηη mixing.

      Considering the mixing between the hybrid flavor singlet and octet, the physical states can be expressed as

      (η1Lη1H)=(cosθsinθsinθcosθ)(η(8)1η(1)1)=(cosαsinαsinαcosα)(nˉn˜gsˉs˜g),

      (5)

      where θ is the mixing angle between the flavor octet and singlet, and α is the mixing angle defined on the flavor basis nˉn˜g (with nˉn(uˉu+dˉd)/2) and sˉs˜g.

      The Gell-Mann-Okubo relationship can provide a constraint on the mixing angle θ via the following equation:

      tanθ=4mKmπ13mη1L22(mπ1mK) ,

      (6)

      where η1L is the lower mass state in Eq. (5) and the sign of θ can be determined here. We note that the same relationship is also satisfied for the quadratic masses. The Gell-Mann-Okubo relationship also leads to the following mass relation,

      (mη1H+mη1L)(4mKmπ1)3mη1Hmη1L=8m2K8mKmπ1+3m2π1 ,

      (7)

      which is symmetric for η1L and η1H, although it is the lower mass state η1L defined in Eq. (5) to appear in Eq. (6). With the masses of π1(1600) and η1(1855) as the input for Eqs. (6) and (7), we are still unable to determine these three quantities, i.e. θ, mη1H/mη1L and mK. In addition, it is unclear whether η1(1855) is the lower or higher mass state in Eq. (5). However, we will later demonstrate that the ηη channel is informative to impose a constraint on the determination of the 1(+) nonet.

    • B.   1(+) nonet decays into pseudoscalar meson pairs

    • The flavor-blindness of the strong interactions also allows us to relate the SU(3) decay channels together [3134]. Considering the two-body decay of η1L and η1H into the pseudoscalar meson pair PP, two independent transition mechanisms can be identified, as illustrated in Fig. 1 (a) and (b). The transition of Fig. 1 (a) represents the flux tube string breaking with the quark pair creation. It is similar to the decay of a conventional qˉq state into two mesons using the quark pair creation (QPC) mechanism. In the flux tube scenario, it corresponds to the flux excitation mode along the displacement between the quark and anti-quark, for which the potential is denoted as ˆVL. The transition of Fig. 1 (b) corresponds to the flux excitation mode transversal to the displacement between the quark and anti-quark. The quark pair created from this mode will recoil the initial color-octet qˉq via the transverse flux motion. For a conventional qˉq decay via the 3P0 QPC mechanism, the kinematic regime as Fig. 1 (b) will be relatively suppressed with respect to Fig. 1 (a). In such a case, in order to balance the color, an additional relatively-hard gluon will be exchanged between the recoiled qˉq and the created qˉq. In contrast, such a transition in the hybrid decay can naturally occur via the transverse mode of the flux tube oscillations [35]. Namely, the created qˉq can easily obtain the color balanced by soft gluon exchanges, which can be absorbed into the effective potential without suppression. Such a transition through the transverse mode of the flux tube motions can be parametrized by the effective potential ˆVT.

      Figure 1.  (color online) Illustration of the 1(+) isoscalar hybrid decays into two mesons.

      The transition amplitude for a 1+ hybrid of qˉq˜g decaying into two pseudoscalar mesons can then be expressed as

      Ma=(q1ˉq4)M1(q3ˉq2)M2|ˆVL|q1ˉq2˜gg1|k| ,

      (8)

      and

      Mb=(q1ˉq2)M1(q3ˉq4)M2|ˆVT|q1ˉq2˜gg2|k| ,

      (9)

      for these two decay modes, respectively. In the above two equations, k denotes the three-vector momentum of the final-state meson in the c.m. frame of the hybrid, while the quarks (anti-quarks) represent the non-strange quarks (anti-quarks). Note that the QPC only contributes to a flavor singlet ˜g(uˉu+dˉd+sˉs)/3. We mention that when the sˉs pair is created, an SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking parameter will be included. Furthermore, in the above two amplitudes, the interchanges of the final-state hadron indices are implied.

      This parametrization leads to a connection among the couplings of an initial hybrid state to different SU(3) channels, and they are collected in Table 1. Interesting features with the hybrid nonet decays can be learned as follows:

      Processes Couplings
      π01ηπ0 12(g1+g2)cosαPRg2sinαP
      π01ηπ0 12(g1+g2)sinαP+Rg2cosαP
      π+1ηπ+ 2(g1+g2)cosαPRg2sinαP
      π+1ηπ+ 2(g1+g2)sinαP+Rg2cosαP
      η1Lηη 12(g1+g2)sin2αP(cosα+Rsinα)+g2cos2αP(Rcosαsinα)
      η1Hηη 12(g1+g2)sin2αP(sinαRcosα)+g2cos2αP(Rsinα+cosα)
      K+K+π0 12g1
      K+K0π+ g1
      K+K+η g1(12cosαPRsinαP)+g2(2cosαPRsinαP)
      K+K+η g1(12sinαP+RcosαP)+g2(2sinαP+RcosαP)

      Table 1.  Coupling constants for the 1(+) hybrid nonet decays into pseudoscalar meson pairs. The couplings for the negative charge states are implied. The SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking parameter R is also included.

      ● It is rather clear that if the final states do not contain isoscalar mesons, the transitions will occur via the string breaking potential ˆVL along the displacement between the quark and anti-quark. Namely, the transitions are similar to the conventional 3P0 process. For K decays into Kπ, it will be difficult to distinguish them from the conventional qˉq vector mesons.

      ● Regarding the π1 and K decays into η or η plus a I0 state, such as π01ηπ0 and ηπ0, the couplings involve interferences between the processes illustrated in Fig. 1 (a) and (b). Because the mixing angle between η and η is αP42, the couplings for the channels between η and η would be significantly different.

      η1L and η1H-decays into ππ and KˉK are forbidden by the Bose symmetry and G-parity conservation. They can only access ηη via the octet and singlet mixing. The coupling strengths exhibit non-trivial dependence on the mixing angle α. It can be observed that the decay pattern for these channels in a combined analysis should be sensitive to the value of α.

    • C.   J/ψγη1γηη

    • A typical process for the production of a JPC=1+ hybrid in the J/ψ-radiative decays is illustrated by Fig. 2. This figure demonstrates that the annihilations of the charm and anti-charm quark can create a pair of light S-wave qˉq associated by a constituent gluon in a relative P-wave to the qˉq. At the hadronic level, the Lagrangian for a general vector-vector-vector field interaction at the leading-order can be described by

      Figure 2.  (color online) Illustration of the 1+ isoscalar hybrid production in J/ψγη1.

      LVVV=igVVV(V1,νμVν2V3,μ+V1,μVν2μV3,ν+V2,μVν3μV1,ν) ,

      (10)

      where V1, V2, and V3 denote the vector fields. For the radiative decay of J/ψγη1, because the photon is transversely polarized, the above Lagrangian will reduce to the following form:

      LJ/ψγη1=igJ/ψη1γFμνVμJ/ψVνη1 ,

      (11)

      where FμνμAννAμ, while the vector fields VJ/ψ, A, and Vη1 represent the initial J/ψ, final-state photon, and hybrid η1 fields, respectively; gJ/ψη1γ is the coupling constant. Note that the leading transition of J/ψγη1 is via a P wave. In the center of mass (c.m.) frame of J/ψ, the squared transition amplitudes for the two I=0 states can be expressed as:

      |iM(J/ψγη1L)|2g2J/ψη1Lγ|qL|2(1+m2J/ψ/m2η1L) ,

      (12)

      |iM(J/ψγη1H)|2g2J/ψη1Hγ|qH|2(1+m2J/ψ/m2η1H) ,

      (13)

      where qL and qH are the three-vector momenta of η1L and η1H in the J/ψ rest frame, respectively. The subscripts, "L" and "H" represent the low and high mass states, respectively. The two coupling constants, gJ/ψη1Lγ and gJ/ψη1Hγ, which account for the production mechanism for these two isoscalars, can be parametrized out:

      gJ/ψη1Lγ=g0(2cosαRsinα) ,

      (14)

      gJ/ψη1Hγ=g0(2sinα+Rcosα) ,

      (15)

      where Rfπ/fK0.93 indicates the SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking effects in the production of the sˉs pair in comparison with the non-strange qˉq pairs, and g0 describes the coupling strength for the production of a light hybrid configuration qˉq˜g of JPC=1+ in the J/ψ radiative decays. It can be expressed as

      g0(qˉq˜g)1+|ˆHem|J/ψ ,

      (16)

      where ˆHem contains the dynamics for the transition in Fig. 2.

      The coupling relationship in Eq. (15) leads to the relative production rate for η1L and η1H as follows:

      rL/HBR(J/ψγη1L)BR(J/ψγη1H)=(|qL||qH|)3(2cosαRsinα)2(2sinα+Rcosα)2m2η1H(m2J/ψ+m2η1L)m2η1L(m2J/ψ+m2η1H) ,

      (17)

      which seems to be sensitive to the mixing angle α. Note that, in Refs. [1, 2] the η1(1855) signal is actually observed in its decays into ηη. Moreover, the PWA results suggest that only one I=0 hybrid state has been clearly observed in the 1+ partial wave amplitude. As illustrated in Subsection II.B, the decays of η1L and η1H into ηη are strongly correlated with the mixing angle α and mechanisms for the flux tube breaking. This implies that the following branching ratio fractions can serve as constraints on the mixing angle:

      SchemeI:Rη1L/η1(1855)BR(J/ψγη1Lγηη)BR(J/ψγη1(1855)γηη)<10% ,

      (18)

      and

      SchemeII:Rη1H/η1(1855)BR(J/ψγη1Hγηη)BR(J/ψγη1(1855)γηη)<10% ,

      (19)

      where we have assigned η1(1855) as either the higher mass state (Scheme-I) or the lower mass state (Scheme-II). The relative rate (10%) is the production upper limit for the partner of η1(1855) from the experimental measurement [1, 2].

      With the earlier extracted production and decay couplings, the general form for the joint branching ratio fraction can be expressed as:

      Rη1L/η1H=(|qL||qH|)3(2cosαRsinα)2(2sinα+Rcosα)2m2η1H(m2J/ψ+m2η1L)m2η1L(m2J/ψ+m2η1H)×(|kL||kH|)3(ΓHmη1HΓLmη1L)2×[(1+δ)tan2αP(cosα+Rsinα)+2δ(Rcosαsinα)]2[(1+δ)tan2αP(sinαRcosα)+2δ(Rsinα+cosα)]2 ,

      (20)

      where ΓL and ΓH represent the total widths of the lower and higher mass states, respectively; qL,H and kL,H denote the three-vector momenta of the photon and pseudoscalar meson in the rest frames of J/ψ and ηL,H, respectively; and δg2/g1 indicates the relative strength between the two decay mechanisms for the flux tube breaking. As discussed earlier, |δ|1 is for the hybrid decays, while |δ|<<1 is for conventional qˉq decays. In Eq. (21), if we approximate ΓH/ΓL1, the ratio Rη1L/η1H will strongly depend on α and δ.

    • D.   Results and analyses

    • Before we go into the detailed studies of the two schemes, we briefly summarize the present experimental information on the strange vector mesons. As presented by the Particle Data Group (PDG) [36], two excited K states are observed in the experiment, i.e. K(1410) and K(1680). Although K(1410) can be well accommodated by the first radial excitations of the vector meson nonet, the property of K(1680) is far from being well explored. Note that the second radial excitations of the isoscalar pseudoscalar mesons can be occupied by η(1760) and η(1860) in the Regge trajectory [37], and the mass of K(1680), as the second radial excitation in the conventional qˉq vector nonet, tends to be negligible. We also note that the strange pseudoscalar partner in the second radial excitation nonet has not yet been established in experiments, although K(1630) could be a candidate [36]. In the following analysis, we first consider K(1680) as the strange partner of the 1(+) nonet and examine whether it fits the constraint. Otherwise, we investigate the mass correlation of K with the mixing angle and other multiplets as required by the Gell-Mann-Okubo relationship.

    • 1.   Scheme-I
    • With the η1(1855) assigned as the higher mass state, and π1(1600) and K(1680) assigned as the I=1 and strange partner, respectively, we extract mη1L=1712.5±8.7 MeV from Eq. (7), and the mixing angle α=30±13. The uncertainties are given by the mass uncertainties from π1(1600) and K(1680) via the Gell-Mann-Okubo relationship. We note that the PDG values [36] are adopted for the masses of these two states, i.e. mπ1=1661±13 MeV and mK=1718±18 MeV. From Eq. (6), we can extract the correlation between the mixing angle and the K mass, and the obtained results are presented in Fig. 3.

      Figure 3.  (color online) Correlation of the mixing angle α with the K mass. The uncertainties are due to the mass uncertainties for those input states. The shadowed area indicates the mass range of K from PDG [36].

      Although the uncertainties of the mixing angle α tend to be rather large, it indicates significant mixings between the flavor octet and singlet, and apparently deviates from the ideal mixing. This appears to be a necessary consequence provided there is only one I=0 hybrid state observed in the ηη channel in J/ψγηη. Nevertheless, it favors the hybrid scenario to have important contributions from the transverse mode of the flux tube motions. To illustrate this, we first consider Eq. (18), where by taking the limit of ideal mixing, i.e. α=0, the production ratio rL/H2 can be obtained. Note that the ratio rL/H is insensitive to the phase space factor and SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking parameter R.

      In the case where η1(1855) is the higher mass state, the ratio Rη1L/η1H defined in Eq. (21) can be compared with the experimental observables with Rη1L/η1(1855) < 10%. In the ideal mixing limit, we have

      Rη1L/η1(1855)(|qL||qH|)3(|kL||kH|)3m2η1H(m2J/ψ+m2η1L)m2η1L(m2J/ψ+m2η1H)×(ΓHmHΓLmL)22R2[(1+δ)tan2αP+2RδR(1+δ)tan2αP2δ]2 .

      (21)

      Note that the product (|qL||qH|)3(|kL||kH|)3m2η1H(m2J/ψ+m2η1L)m2η1L(m2J/ψ+m2η1H)(ΓHmHΓLmL)2 actually enhances the ratio, while tan2αP10 will further push the ratio up. It thus relies on the value of δ to decide the value of Rη1L/η1H. As discussed earlier, for conventional qˉq meson decays, one would expect δ0. It actually leads to Rη1L/η1H>1, which contradicts the experimental observation. For the hybrid decays, the transverse mode of the flux tube motions plays an important role in the decays. It implies that |δ|1, or is even the dominant transition mechanism with |δ|>1. Eventually, to obtain Rη1L/η1(1855) < 10%, as suggested by the experimental data, it is observed that δ should take a negative value, and the absolute value is at O(1).

      In Fig. 4, with the mixing angle α within its uncertainty range, i.e. α=30±13, we plot the ratios rL/H and Rη1L/η1(1855). For demonstration, we adopt δ=0.8,  1.0, 1.2 to calculate Rη1L/η1(1855). It shows that rL/H is not sufficiently suppressed while the decays via the transverse mode play a dominant role in suppressing the low-mass state. Although we cannot provide a precise value for δ based on the present experimental results, we deduce that the relative sign between g1 and g2 and their relative strength can consistently reflect the hybrid features.

      Figure 4.  (color online) Dependence of the ratios rL/H and Rη1L/η1(1855) on the mixing angle α within the preferred range of α(17, 43). In Scheme-I η(1855) is the high-mass state. On the left panel the solid line is for rL/H, while on the right panel the dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines correspond to the ratio Rη1L/η1(1855) with δ=0.8, 1.0, 1.2, respectively.

      In Fig. 5, we illustrate the 1(+) nonet in Scheme-I. The shadowed ranges depict the mass uncertainties while the central dashed lines denote the preferred mass.

      Figure 5.  (color online) The 1(+) hybrid nonet with mass uncertainties determined in Scheme-I. Namely, η1(1855) is assigned as the higher mass state with I=0.

    • 2.   Scheme-II
    • With the η1(1855) assigned as the lower mass state, and π1(1600) maintained as the I=1 partner, the determination of the lower I=0 state will be differently correlated with the mass of the strange partner. This implies that K(1680) is no longer suitable for being the strange partner of the nonet. This can be easily observed using Eq. (7), which is symmetric to η1L and η1H. If the same K mass is taken, the solution for the other η1 mass will be a lower one, as in Scheme-I, and η1(1855) will be maintained at a higher mass state.

      Therefore, searching for the higher mass partner of η1(1855) requires a higher K mass as input. As discussed earlier, to date, we still lack experimental information about the vector strange spectrum. Fortunately, if we impose the BESIII observation as a constraint again, we should obtain the inverse form of Eq. (21) to satisfy Eq. (20). In such a case, we determine that the mixing angle remains located around α(25,45) corresponding to mK1.831.90 GeV. Meanwhile, it shows that δ remains at O(1), but favors a positive sign. In fact, the sign and magnitude of δ turn out to be very sensitive to the experimental constraint, which can be analytically observed using Eq. (21).

      Similar to Fig. 3, we plot in Fig. 6, the correlation between the mixing angle α and the K mass. The preferred K mass is mK1.831.90 GeV corresponding to the range of α=2545.

      Figure 6.  (color online) Correlation of the mixing angle α with the K mass in Scheme-II. The uncertainties are due to the mass uncertainties for those input states.

      In Fig. 7, we present the results for rH/L and Rη1H/η1(1855) in terms of the mixing angle α within its uncertainty range, i.e. α=2545. It is interesting to see that in Scheme-II, the production of η(1855) in J/ψγη1L,1H as the low-mass state is actually comparable with the higher one. It is the decay transition of η1Lηη that strongly enhances the signal of η1(1855) in the ηη channel while the higher mass state is suppressed owing to its weak coupling to the ηη channel. Again, we observe the dominance of the transverse mode in the hybrid decays. For demonstrations, we adopt δ=0.8, 1.0, 1.2 to calculate Rη1H/η1(1855), which are presented on the right panel of Fig. 7.

      Figure 7.  (color online) The dependence of the ratios rH/L and Rη1H/η1(1855) on the mixing angle α within the preferred range of α(25, 45). In Scheme-II, η1(1855) is the low-mass state. On the left panel the solid line is for rH/L, while on the right panel the dashed, dot-dashed, and dotted lines correspond to the ratio Rη1H/η1(1855) with δ=0.8, 1.0, 1.2, respectively.

      In Fig. 8, we illustrate the 1(+) nonet in Scheme-II. The shadowed ranges represent the mass uncertainties and the central dashed lines denote the preferred mass.

      Figure 8.  (color online) The 1(+) hybrid nonet with mass uncertainties determined in Scheme-II. Namely, η1(1855) is assigned as the lower mass state with I=0.

      Comparing these two nonet schemes, it demonstrates that the transverse mode plays an important role for understanding the decay pattern observed in experiment. The relative sign between the transverse and longitudinal modes should decide the scheme that is the physical one. However, based on the present experimental information, it is impossible to conclude. We would look forward to further observations, to provide a constraint on the sign from the experiment. Meanwhile, we note that the LQCD calculations of these two decay modes may also be beneficial in determining their relative signs.

    • E.   Predictions for J/ψVH

    • To further investigate the characters emerging from the nonet structure of the 1(+) hybrid states, we analyze the hadronic decays of J/ψVH and search for signals for the I=0 partner of η1(1855). Here, V denotes the vector mesons ρ, ω, and ϕ, while H represents the light hybrid multiplets. This process is illustrated in Fig. 9, and the leading-order Lagrangian is given in Eq. (10). The coupling for J/ψ[qˉq]1[qˉq˜g]1+ can be parametrized as

      Figure 9.  (color online) Illustration of the production process for the 1(+) hybrid states in J/ψVH where V denotes the light vector mesons ρ, ω, ϕ and K(892).

      gP[qˉq]1[qˉq˜g]1+|ˆVP|J/ψ ,

      (22)

      where ˆVP represents the potential for the hadronic decays of J/ψVH. In addition, the detailed coupling constants for different decay channels are expressed as follows:

      gJ/ψρ+π1=gP,gJ/ψωη1L=gPcosα ,gJ/ψωη1H=gPsinα ,gJ/ψϕη1L=gPR2sinα ,gJ/ψϕη1H=gPR2cosα ,gJ/ψK+KH=gPR ,

      (23)

      where R is the SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking factor defined earlier. In this Section, to distinguish the hybrid K from K(892), we denote it as KH. In addition to the partial wave factor (|q|3), which should be included for each channel and a mass function that has the same form for each channel, the branching ratio fractions among all the VH decay channels will be driven by the following relative strengths:

      ρ+π1:ωη1L:ωη1H:ϕη1L:ϕη1H:K+KH=1:cos2α:sin2α:R4sin2α:R4cos2α:R2 .

      (24)

      Note that for the total of ρπ, a factor of 3 should be multiplied to the ρ+π1 channel, while the total of KˉKH+c.c., a factor of 4 should be multiplied to the K+KH channel.

      If we consider the effects emerging from the partial wave factor and the SU(3) flavor symmetry breaking factor R, we observe that the ρπ1 channel has the largest branching ratio, while the production strengths for most of the other channels are actually comparable with α30. In particular, this suggests that the production of η1L and η1H are accessible in the same channel such as J/ψωηη. This differs from the case of J/ψγηη.

      It should also be interesting to study the J/ψKˉKH+c.c. channel. Because KH has JP=1, which is the same as the radial excitation states of the vector K(892), it is difficult to identify the hybrid-like state. However, as discussed earlier, the isolated K(1680), either as a radial excitation state of K(892) or a hybrid state, will provide crucial understandings on the K spectrum. In the hybrid scenario, KH will prefer decaying into K1πKππ. This implies that J/ψKˉKππππ will be ideal for the KH search.

      In Fig. 10, we plot the branching ratio fractions in Scheme-I for each channels with respect to J/ψρ+π1, for which we set it as unity, while the other channels are normalized to the ρ+π1 channel with R=0.93 adopted. The favored range of the mixing angle is approximately α(17,43). However, a relatively broad range is plotted in Fig. 10 as an illustration. The dependence of the mixing angle produces certain patterns, which makes the combined study of the VH channel beneficial for the further verification of the 1(+) nonet.

      Figure 10.  (color online) Predicted branching ratio fractions for BR(J/ψVH)/BR(J/ψρ+π1) in terms of α in Scheme-I.

      For the results of Scheme-II, the ωη1H and ϕη1H thresholds are higher than the J/ψ mass. A combined study can be conducted in other higher heavy quarkonium decays such as ΥVH.

    III.   SUMMARY
    • Inspired by the observation of the isoscalar 1+ hybrid candidate η1(1855) in J/ψγη1(1855)γηη, we investigated its SU(3) flavor partners using a parametrization method based on the flux tube model picture. We demonstrated that, although the present experimental information remains limited, it could depict the 1(+) nonet of which the production and decays were consistent with the expectations of the flux tube model. We determined that the observation of a single η1(1855) in the ηη channel is informative and can impose relatively strong constraints on the hybrid scenario. In particular, it suggests that the flavor octet and singlet mixing would be apparently deviated from the SU(3) ideal mixing, which indicates the importance of the quark annihilation effects. In the flux tube model, this implies that the transverse mode of the flux tube motions is important.

      We examined two schemes for the 1(+) hybrid nonet by assigning the observed η1(1855) to be either the high or low mass state with I=0. In both cases, we determined that the requirement that one I=0 state should be highly suppressed in J/ψγηη will also impose a strong constraint on the hybrid K mass. For the case in which η1(1855) was the higher mass state, K(1680) appeared capable of filling the nonet chart reasonably well. For the case in which η1(1855) was the lower mass state, a new state K(1860) was predicted. We deduced that one of the main differences between these two solutions lies on the relative sign between the transverse and longitudinal modes of the gluonic motions in the decay of the I=0 hybrid states. This implies that additional constraints from other processes are required. As a strongly correlated process, we suggest a combined study of J/ψVH, to clarify the difference between these two schemes. Notice that the ρπ1 production rate was expected to be significant and specific pattern actually emerged from the hybrid scenario. Hence, further evidences for η1(1855) and its partner in J/ψVH at BESIII would be crucial to ultimately establish the 1(+) nonet.

    ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
    • The authors thank Xiao-Hai Liu and Alessandro Pilloni for their useful comments and discussions.

Reference (37)

目录

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return